ated. See
the chapter here on 'The Riddle Theory.'

(3) These processes, if demonstrated, which they are not, must be
carefully discriminated from the actual demonstrable process of
folk-etymology. The Marmalade legend gives the etymology of a word,
marmalade; the Daphne legend does not give an etymology.

(4) The theory of Daphne is of the kind protested against by Mannhardt,
where he warns us against looking in most myths for a 'mirror-picture' on
earth of celestial phenomena. {20a} For these reasons, among others, I
am disinclined to accept Mr. Max Muller's attempt to explain the story of
Daphne.

Mannhardt on Daphne

Since we shall presently find Mr. Max Muller claiming the celebrated
Mannhardt as a sometime deserter of philological comparative mythology,
who 'returned to his old colours,' I observe with pleasure that Mannhardt
is on my side and against the Oxford Professor. Mannhardt shows that the
laurel (daphne) was regarded as a plant which, like our rowan tree,
averts evil influences. 'Moreover, the laurel, like the Maibaum, was
looked on as a being with a spirit. This is the safest result which myth
analysis can extract from the story of Daphne, a nymph pursued by Apollo
and changed into a laurel. It is a result of the use of the laurel in
his ritual.' {20b} In 1877, a year after Mannhardt is said by Mr. Max
Muller to have returned to his old colours, he repeats this explanation.
{21a} In the same work (p. 20) he says that 'there is no reason for
accepting Max Muller's explanation about the Sun-god and the Dawn, wo
jeder thatliche Anhalt dafur fehlt.' For this opinion we might also cite
the Sanskrit scholars Whitney and Bergaigne. {21b}

THE QUESTION OF ALLIES

Athanasius

Mr. Max Muller protests, most justly, against the statement that he, like
St. Athanasius, stands alone, contra mundum. If ever this phrase fell
from my pen (in what connection I know not), it is as erroneous as the
position of St. Athanasius is honourable. Mr. Max Muller's ideas, in
various modifications, are doubtless still the most prevalent of any. The
anthropological method has hardly touched, I think, the learned
contributors to Roscher's excellent mythological Lexicon. Dr. Brinton,
whose American researches are so useful, seems decidedly to be a member
of the older school. While I do not exactly remember alluding to
Athanasius, I fully and freely withdraw the phrase. But there remain
questions o